Zompist Bboard Again

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:54 am
Very interesting! Though I wonder if ruthlessness and self-confidence are in the nature of left-wing politics.
Some left-wing tendancies are ruthless and self-confident... They may not be the example we want to follow.

Well, both of us have lived our entire lives in times when the Left (used here in the broadest possible sense, as in, "everyone whom right-wingers see as left-wing") was usually on the retreat, at least on economic matters, and at best sometimes managed it to do somewhat well in rearguard actions. That might have influenced your and my perception of how self-confident left-wingers are.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 7:06 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:54 am
Very interesting! Though I wonder if ruthlessness and self-confidence are in the nature of left-wing politics.
Some left-wing tendancies are ruthless and self-confident... They may not be the example we want to follow.

Well, both of us have lived our entire lives in times when the Left (used here in the broadest possible sense, as in, "everyone whom right-wingers see as left-wing") was usually on the retreat, at least on economic matters, and at best sometimes managed it to do somewhat well in rearguard actions. That might have influenced your and my perception of how self-confident left-wingers are.

Yes, the wheel of social progress is currently in reverse, and has been for decades, so the left is more concerned with stopping it rather than achieving actual progress. Which doesn't mean that no progress is achieved in circumscribed particular fields such as gender diversity, though - but over all, things have gotten worse, and thus many people wish the past to be restored, which is of course what the far right thrives on.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:45 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:54 am Though I wonder if ruthlessness and self-confidence are in the nature of left-wing politics.
Some left-wing tendancies are ruthless and self-confident... They may not be the example we want to follow.

Depends on the time and place. Surely someone's studied this, but neither left or right rewards doing the same thing all the time. GOP voters today want an asshole, but one who's their asshole. But that wasn't always the case: people liked Reagan because (while implementing nasty policies) he seemed nice. Democrats wanted someone calm in 2008, arguably today they want a fighter.

The way I remember it, people liked Obama because they wanted "hope" and "change" from war and economic collapse, not because he was "calm".

As part of my recent Maciej Cegłowski binge, I read these two pieces he wrote about various aspects of US political campaigns he wrote back in 2018 and 2019:

First, Portrait of a Campaign, about his experiences working with various House of Representatives campaigns during the runup to the 2018 midterms. https://idlewords.com/2018/10/portrait_ ... mpaign.htm I wonder if any of you have second or third or whatever opinions on 1) whether his diagnosis made sense back in 2018, 2) whether his diagnosis would still make sense today, 3) whether his prescriptions made sense back in 2018, and 4) whether his prescriptions would still make sense today.

And second, What I Learned Trying To Secure Congressional Campaigns, which is about a more technical and specialist interest, that is, computer security in political campaigns. Same questions as above. https://idlewords.com/2019/05/what_i_le ... paigns.htm

Breaking News!!!

Trump won the Peace Prize! (The FIFA Peace Prize.)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXUyILqagc

(I promise this is not a video from The Onion.)

Of course, it is common knowledge that the FIFA is as corrupt as it could be. But there also has been a "Gaddafi Human Rights Prize" (discontinued after Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011), though the "Torquemada Award for Religious Tolerance" and the "Hitler Peace Prize" are fictional.

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:25 am Breaking News!!!

Trump won the Peace Prize! (The FIFA Peace Prize.)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXUyILqagc

(I promise this is not a video from The Onion.)

I think I'll just repost what I said about that on Bluesky:

INFANTILE: Look, we're very important and prestigious - the President of the USA got a price from us!

TRUMP: Look, I'm very important and prestigious - I got a price from FIFA!

The "Epstein Files" got released... but not really. Despite the law demanding that they be redacted only to protect victims, they've been extensively redacted to protect many prominent people.

But don't worry!, because of some redactors' incompetence, you (yes you) can unredact some of the files yourself! All you need to do is copy the text from the document and then paste it into your favorite text editor! This works because the redactors simply applied a black highlight style to the text, which hides the text fine if you just print the document, but is obviously inadequate if you must send the digital document to someone.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmQOIfVnynI

Anyways, here's a document alleging that Trump witnessed a newborn baby being born and then murdered on a boat in Lake Michigan in the 1980s, after forcing the 13-year old pregnant girl to do cocaine with him.

https://www.jmail.world/drive/vol00008-official-doj-latest-efta00025010.pdf?q=disposed+lake+michigan wrote:Witness Information
First Name: Donald
Middle Name:
Last Name: Trump
Age: 70
DOB:
Additional Info: Again, just trying to find out the NYPD detective on the FBI sex trafficking task force that called me a couple of weeks ago and spoke to me about some of these issues.
How is Contact Known: He participated regularly in paying money to force me to with him and he was present when my uncle murdered my newborn child and disposed of the body in Lake Michigan.
Type: Business
Address:
City: Washington DC
State: District of Columbia
Zip: 20500
Country: United States

Also, in other news, "prediction markets" are gaining popularity, because they definitely aren't gambling!
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq3v-Y6cvLI

jcb wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 10:05 am The "Epstein Files" got released... but not really. Despite the law demanding that they be redacted only to protect victims, they've been extensively redacted to protect many prominent people.

I was just starting to laugh about the first half of your post, when I read the second half of your post. As we say in Germany, it makes the laughter get stuck in your neck.

I'm a bit skeptical, though. Why haven't I heard of the "not really redacted"-thing anywhere else? I follow some news sources which usually don't pull any punches when it is about Trump. If this was for real, I'd have expected them to be all over it.

And which investigations into Epstein and related matters were going on in 2016 and 2017, which would have been the time when Trump was 70 years old? And why would such investigations have bothered with events from the 1980s, which was long before the height of Epstein's wealth and power? And which "business" in Washington DC was connected to that?

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:02 am

jcb wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 10:05 am The "Epstein Files" got released... but not really. Despite the law demanding that they be redacted only to protect victims, they've been extensively redacted to protect many prominent people.

I was just starting to laugh about the first half of your post, when I read the second half of your post. As we say in Germany, it makes the laughter get stuck in your neck.

I'm a bit skeptical, though. Why haven't I heard of the "not really redacted"-thing anywhere else? I follow some news sources which usually don't pull any punches when it is about Trump. If this was for real, I'd have expected them to be all over it.

And which investigations into Epstein and related matters were going on in 2016 and 2017, which would have been the time when Trump was 70 years old? And why would such investigations have bothered with events from the 1980s, which was long before the height of Epstein's wealth and power? And which "business" in Washington DC was connected to that?

I've heard of similar issues with supposedly 'redacted' documents before elsewhere, this is a real matter.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:23 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:02 am

jcb wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 10:05 am The "Epstein Files" got released... but not really. Despite the law demanding that they be redacted only to protect victims, they've been extensively redacted to protect many prominent people.

I was just starting to laugh about the first half of your post, when I read the second half of your post. As we say in Germany, it makes the laughter get stuck in your neck.

I'm a bit skeptical, though. Why haven't I heard of the "not really redacted"-thing anywhere else? I follow some news sources which usually don't pull any punches when it is about Trump. If this was for real, I'd have expected them to be all over it.

And which investigations into Epstein and related matters were going on in 2016 and 2017, which would have been the time when Trump was 70 years old? And why would such investigations have bothered with events from the 1980s, which was long before the height of Epstein's wealth and power? And which "business" in Washington DC was connected to that?

I've heard of similar issues with supposedly 'redacted' documents before elsewhere, this is a real matter.

I’ve heard of it too; in fact, even before people ‘un-redacted’ the documents, I remember wondering whether they’d truly been redacted correctly

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:02 am

jcb wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 10:05 am The "Epstein Files" got released... but not really. Despite the law demanding that they be redacted only to protect victims, they've been extensively redacted to protect many prominent people.

I was just starting to laugh about the first half of your post, when I read the second half of your post. As we say in Germany, it makes the laughter get stuck in your neck.

I'm a bit skeptical, though. Why haven't I heard of the "not really redacted"-thing anywhere else? I follow some news sources which usually don't pull any punches when it is about Trump. If this was for real, I'd have expected them to be all over it.

And which investigations into Epstein and related matters were going on in 2016 and 2017, which would have been the time when Trump was 70 years old? And why would such investigations have bothered with events from the 1980s, which was long before the height of Epstein's wealth and power? And which "business" in Washington DC was connected to that?

If I search "epstein documents redacted incorrectly" on Google, I find a bunch of articles about it:
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/epstein-f ... -9.7027723
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/p ... s-doj.html
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/red ... 28905.html
- https://www.theverge.com/news/849639/ep ... ions-links

IIRC, this happened with the "part 1" documents released back in february too (or maybe documents from some other unrelated case, I can't remember), so I was anticipating that it would happen again with the latest batch.

jcb wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 12:59 pm
If I search "epstein documents redacted incorrectly" on Google, I find a bunch of articles about it:
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/epstein-f ... -9.7027723
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/p ... s-doj.html
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/red ... 28905.html
- https://www.theverge.com/news/849639/ep ... ions-links

IIRC, this happened with the "part 1" documents released back in february too (or maybe documents from some other unrelated case, I can't remember), so I was anticipating that it would happen again with the latest batch.

Thank you for the additional information!

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:02 am

I'm a bit skeptical, though. Why haven't I heard of the "not really redacted"-thing anywhere else? I follow some news sources which usually don't pull any punches when it is about Trump. If this was for real, I'd have expected them to be all over it.

It seems the most reputable news source have barely mentioned the Epstein files' release, or not-quite-release. I guess they figure it won't amoun to anything, so why bother? I tend to agree with that.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Dec 27, 2025 10:04 am I guess they figure it won't amoun to anything, so why bother? I tend to agree with that.

Don't agree. As others have pointed out, it has led to more MAGA types criticizing Trump than anything else. (That's part of the reason why I honestly wish Trump a long life by now. As soon as his health issues catch up with him, Epstein will matter a lot less.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:23 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:02 am

jcb wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 10:05 am The "Epstein Files" got released... but not really. Despite the law demanding that they be redacted only to protect victims, they've been extensively redacted to protect many prominent people.

I was just starting to laugh about the first half of your post, when I read the second half of your post. As we say in Germany, it makes the laughter get stuck in your neck.

I'm a bit skeptical, though. Why haven't I heard of the "not really redacted"-thing anywhere else? I follow some news sources which usually don't pull any punches when it is about Trump. If this was for real, I'd have expected them to be all over it.

And which investigations into Epstein and related matters were going on in 2016 and 2017, which would have been the time when Trump was 70 years old? And why would such investigations have bothered with events from the 1980s, which was long before the height of Epstein's wealth and power? And which "business" in Washington DC was connected to that?

I've heard of similar issues with supposedly 'redacted' documents before elsewhere, this is a real matter.

Here's a video from 15 years ago showing exactly the same problem:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW9X0P-tKyI

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 11:29 am I’ve heard of it too; in fact, even before people ‘un-redacted’ the documents, I remember wondering whether they’d truly been redacted correctly

As an occasional 'redactor' ('expurgator' would probably be a better word), I've had to worry about such issues. The security procedures seemed not to give any advice on the issue, so I've had to resort to editing PostScript files for graphic edits and using .doc to .rtf conversion to check text changes.

I've been hearing worrying news about a bunch of Somali daycare centers in MInnesota getting caught engaging in rampant fraud. This is shaping up to be quite a propaganda victory for the MAGA movement right when it needs some wind in its sails.

I am not sure how to most gently say this, but there is a difference between reporting enemy propaganda in order to inform your side's strategy for countering it, on the one hand, and reporting enemy propaganda in order to advance the enemy's cause, on the other hand. The second is something I think you would want to avoid, Malloc, if viewing the situation with clear eyes.

It seems that depression or something like that is framing a lot of your interpretations of how to proceed. I don't want to deny that there are people I genuinely consider bad out there, for reasons similar to why you consider them bad. However, for someone in your situation, I think it would be very helpful to address your mental health, as part of your strategy for effectively opposing these people.

I think most people on this forum are sympathetic to your situation, and are saddened that you're having trouble escaping it. I am imminently moving and so may have somewhat tight cash flow for the next few weeks, but in the future I would be willing to try and provide some cash or other assistance for something like therapy, and I know other people on the forum have made similar offers.